Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor

13 Feb

Registration leads to confiscation.  When Canada started to confiscate Canadian rifles, Canadians tried to play “Mr. Nice Guy”.  The news anchor in this video warns Americans to avoid making the same mistake.

The people in positions of power in Washington DC no longer represent the best interests of the American people and therefore can no longer claim to be the “American government”.  Thus, it’s not really the “American government” that wants Americans disarmed–it’s the same group of globalists that wanted Canadians disarmed.  It’s the New World Order that wants you disarmed.  And they’ll probably have their way, unless the American gun-owners stop playing “Mr. Nice Guy” and instead tell all gun control to stick it up their arse and shut their G.D. mouths.

video     00:05:21


Tags: , , , , ,

36 responses to “Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor

  1. gary lee

    February 14, 2013 at 12:07 AM

    Dave Champion had an appropriate post on his web page, though not sure where he got it: “When they come to take your guns, don’t give’em your guns, shoot the bastards with it! It’s the kings men come to collect taxes….and I’m felling a little “Robbin’ Hood-ish”….

  2. Anthony Clifton

    February 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM

    helpless psychophants…limp wristed TV watching morons…!/2013/02/kaspersky-fsb-and-growing-cyber.html

    who never did an honest days work…

    played with a slingshot, a 22, played hookey and went fishing
    … or even rode a bicycle without a helmet…

    always obeyed and submitted to the word of the “Authorities”…

    seriously, what was in those boxes Maggie Williams took from Fosters office…

    Murkins…its not a dream anymore..

    ….it’s a nightmare

    Jesus said emphatically –

    “FEAR NOT”…!

  3. Lyndon

    February 14, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    The people that did not register their guns, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, if not indeed millions, keep their property where it belongs: in their possession. Any statutory gun law of CANADA applies only to agents of CANADA as these agents are government trustees and cannot be trusted with guns. The free people of Canada are responsible for their own property, mind their own actions, and govern themselves wisely.

    Statutory gun laws can be good if these laws serve to keep guns out of the hands of government and protect the free people from harm from government agents. It is never seen for a member of the republic of Canada to strut about with a revolver on his hip and attempt to direct traffic, or publicly display a pistol packaged and strapped around his waist while he suffers his fellow man a demand for money for not crossing the street at an intersection.

  4. Buck

    February 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    Alfred, help me out here. If indeed, through our own consent by whatever method we’ve chosen (birth certificate, drivers licenses, SSNs, “entitlement” benefits, etc) we are chattel and corporate assets for the United States, then can we actually stand on the Bill of Rights and claim our inherent “rights” while under the presumption of their jurisdiction in the territories? Or do we have to unplug from that system to retain organic and inherent rights?

    • Yartap

      February 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM

      Buck, I believe that we have to unplug. Signing contracts, obligates one to the terms of the contract.

    • Adask

      February 14, 2013 at 3:02 PM

      I cannot prove, but I believe that they entire “system” of “this state” has been and, so far, remains voluntary. If the government forced us to enter into it’s de facto system, the use of force might render them liable for treason or some such. I believe (can’t prove) that they (so far) must operate on the premise that you have voluntarily entered their “system”. I believe (can’t prove) that they presume your voluntary entry into their system by virtue of a host of things including BC, DL, utility bills, bank accounts, and God only knows what else. If it’s true that they presume that you entered “this state” voluntarily, then the solution to you problem may be to expressly deny having voluntarily entered into “this state”. If you can deny under oath that you have voluntarily entered into “this state,” they probably have no way to prosecute you.

      In fact, I probably would not “expressly deny” that I’m “in this state”. I try to structure my imaginary legal arguments in terms of whatever a jury can hear and understand. To the average juror, denying that you’re “in this state” would sound like a lunatic. But I would swear that I’m a man made in God’s image and endowed my Creator with certain unalienable Rights who is acting at arm’s length at all times and places relative to the case at hand, and who had acted within the boundaries of the de jure county (say, “The Country of Baker”) that is a political subdivision of a State of the Union (say, The State of Oregon) that is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”–that sworn assertion would be equivalent to a sworn denial that I’m “in this state”. Once I indirectly denied that I’m “in this state” by introducing sworn evidence that I’m within The State of Oregon, it would be up to the government to assert under oath (and in front of a jury) that, no, I’m not within The State of Oregon, but am instead “in this state”. If the government has to prove to the jury that I’m “in this state,” the government is the one who will sound “loony”.

      Assuming that the “this state” hypothesis is even true, I don’t believe that the government is willing or even able to expressly asset the existence of “this state”. If so, then it might follow that–once you properly asserted that you’re a “man made in God’s image,” etc., and that all relevant activity in regard to the lawsuit had taken place within the borders of a State of the Union–the government might be reluctant to pursue the case. They might drop the case before it went to court, the public record and the jury.

      I’m not suggesting that this is an easy or foolproof strategy. You’d need to very knowledgeable concerning your own identity and the issue of venue (The State vs this state). Even if you knew these arguments well, you can expect that the government would try to intimidate you into making some sort of plea bargain or “voluntarily” surrendering your lines of defense–so you’d need a lot of courage to risk trying this line of defense.

      But, if you had sufficient knowledge and courage, you might prevail.

      On the other hand, suppose my theory of “this state” is complete nonsense–there is no harm in alleging that everything you’ve done is within a State of the Union.

      I don’t want to be the guy who argues “this state” before a jury. I want to be the guy who swears to “The State” (of the Union) before the jury. Whoever raises the issue of “this state” before a jury will be deemed a crazy man. Whoever asserts the reality of “The State” before a jury may be deemed a wise man.

      What I’m trying to communicate is the idea that I might be able to approach the jury from the perspective that, Yes, I have a DL (or SSN or bank signature card, etc.) but So What? If I swear I am still a man made in God’s image and I’m still operating within the borders of a State of the Union, who will rise to swear against me? Will the government tell the jury that the DL, SSN, bank card, utilities bills, etc. reduce my status from that of a free man to that of an animal, or unwitting fiduciary for a legal fiction, or even a surety for a fiction? Will those various cards and bills etc., create the presumption that I’m operating in the fiction venue of “this state”?

      Again, I’m not arguing that this strategy is easy. It would take a lot of smarts and courage to see this through. But if you want things to be easy and “handed to you,” vote Obama.

      • Doug (noone222)

        February 17, 2013 at 7:06 AM

        What I’m trying to communicate is the idea that I might be able to approach the jury from the perspective that, Yes, I have a DL (or SSN or bank signature card, etc.) but So What? If I swear I am still a man made in God’s image and I’m still operating within the borders of a State of the Union, who will rise to swear against me? Will the government tell the jury that the DL, SSN, bank card, utilities bills, etc. reduce my status from that of a free man to that of an animal, or unwitting fiduciary for a legal fiction, or even a surety for a fiction? Will those various cards and bills etc., create the presumption that I’m operating in the fiction venue of “this state”?

        Simply put, yes. The court-judge-jury will allow you to remain stedfast in your manhood – while awarding the judgment to the prosecution because of these agreements you have voluntarily entered into.

      • Adask

        February 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

        I think you may be missing my point. Once I assert my nature and my location under oath, those facts are introduced as evidence into the court record. Before the court, jury or anyone else can lawfully proceed against me, someone has to testify under oath that 1) I (and all of the jurors, incidentally) gave up our nature as “men made in God’s image” when we took a DL, SSN, bank signature card, voters registration, whatever; and 2) that I (and all of the jurors, incidentally) are presumed to be operating in a fictional venue of “this state” rather than the actual, constitutional venue of The State of Oregon.

        By introducing such testimony, I am essentially daring the government to introduce contradictory testimony. I don’t believe the government can offer contradictory testimony. I don’t believe the government will offer contradictory testimony because it doesn’t want to risk seeing the issue of my “nature” or my “location” appear on the record in court. Therefore, I believe the government will be inclined to settle the case on terms agreeable to me, or even drop the case.

        My belief is based on my direct and personal experience when I was sued by the Attorney General of Texas for $25,000/day ($9 million/year) (see, I drafted a defense based on being a man made in God’s image, and the Texas AG (after investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in pre-trial hearings and investigations) simply dropped the case.

        Therefore, I know that the strategy that I’ve proposed can work.

        I also know that most of what passes for government is a criminal enterprise and the crooks on the bench can rule against you whenever they want. Therefore, I can’t say that this strategy (man made in God’s image within the borders of a State of the Union) will ever work again–but it should and it could–especially if enough people hear about it, learn it and try it.

        So, can the government defeat me? Probably Yes. They can trot out my former DLs, voter registrations, bank signature cards, etc. etc. and show the jury that by virtue of signing any of those documents, I abandoned my status as a man made in Gods image, etc., and became an item of livestock living in a federal territory rather than a State of the Union. But, if the gov-co trots out any of those documents in support of their denial of my standing as a “man made in God’s image,” etc., the gov-co will have to risk shocking the jurors. I.e., the jurors will realize that the government also presumes them, their families and friends, to be livestock on a territorial plantation. Will the jury made aware of this treason be still willing to find me guilty? They might, but the odds are in my favor that they’ll vote against my prosecutor.

        My proposed strategy is not a “legal” strategy so much as a “political” strategy. I’m raising an issue that the government doesn’t want to touch on the public record. Could they “touch it”? Yes. But will they “touch it,” probably not. It’s too damned “hot” for them to handle. They can’t openly admit to a jury that the government regards us all as livestock living on a territorial “plantation” rather than within the borders of a State of the Union.

        My defense is somewhat like introducing photographs of the judge having sex with a goat into the public record. If the judge doesn’t want the public to see those photos, he will tend to dismiss the case or reach some settlement that keeps photos secret. It’s not a “legal” win for me, per se. It’s more of a “political” win. But it’s still a win.

  5. Yartap

    February 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM

    Thank Al,

    The video made me realize that one of government’s most dangerous tactics is to only attack a small part or group of the public, i.e.: “We only want this type or this area or these people.” “Only people with green hair will be removed.” “Great – It’s not me they want – go ahead.”

    Note: If you have a “registered gun,” then it is a good idea to report the gun stolen for the records.

  6. Judson

    February 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM

    Part of my descovery wouldbe where, how and when did I enter into this contract “with my full knowage of all it’s details”? “One has to have, (fully informed) full knowage of the terms of the contract before it can become a fully perfected contract”.

    • Adask

      February 15, 2013 at 3:44 AM

      Are you sure that the agreement you’re referring to is a contract? Are you sure that it’s not an implied trust relationship?

      • Yartap

        February 15, 2013 at 12:39 PM


        Alfred is right about the trust relationship for some things. But over time things like Social Security and driver’s license are established by contract (not informed adhesion contracts).

      • Adask

        February 15, 2013 at 1:19 PM

        How can SS and DL be contracts? Are there two signatures to the applications and/or final instrument? How do you have a written contract with only one signature? When there’s only one signature, it’s not a contract, per se, it’s a pledge. I deem pledges to be more involved with trust relationships than contracts.

        What about full disclosure? My understanding is that contracts require a “meeting of the minds” (two or more minds as evidenced by two or more signatures) and that the contract must contain “full disclosure” of all terms and effects on the face of the contract. If my understanding is roughly correct, where is the document that you received from the SS Administration that contains two signatures and full disclosure of all relevant terms, conditions, etc? Where’s the document that you received with your DL that contains two signatures and full disclosure of all terms?

        I doubt that you have ever had such documents. So, I don’t see why you insist that your relationship to SS or DL is “contractual”.

        I see both single-signature documents to be pledges and evidence of a trust relationship.

      • Yartap

        February 15, 2013 at 2:06 PM

        Al, your right.

      • Yartap

        February 15, 2013 at 2:38 PM


        The trust has either changed into a corporation or the trust has been set aside with a corporation functioning as a government. Which is it? I don’t know. If it is a corporation that is acting as my government, the things, services or powers, that it is NOT granted by contract, which government still offers to each individual, can be offered as a single signature contract for each person, and not a pledge.

        An actual driver’s license is the document (contract) and it has two signatures, the licensee and the governor’s of the state. Social Security – Is it a forced single signature adhesion contract or a forced single signature adhesion pledge? Let’s ask the Amish. Yes, for them, there was a meeting of the minds and full disclosure. Sounds like a contract to me.

      • Adask

        February 15, 2013 at 2:45 PM

        The “trust changed into a corporation”? Why would that be? A corporation can create trust and name itself as fiduciary or beneficiary. A third party can create a trust and name a corporation as a beneficiary of a trust. There is nothing about trusts that mandates that trusts and corporations are mutually exclusive. Trusts can include corporations. Corporations can include trusts. The presence of a corporation does not convert a trust into a contract.

        It is precisely because a lot of our relationships to gov-co “sound like a contract” to most people that most people are bamboozled. Because people routinely mistake a trust for a contract, they try to fight the alleged “contract” (actually, a trust) with contract law–and they’re amazed when they almost always lose.

        Insofar as you admit that that whatever you’re confronting, “it sounds like a contract to me,” you implicitly admit that you’re not sure if you’re fighting a contract, a trust, or a Walt Disney cartoon.

        If you want to successfully fight a trust relationship, you must first recognize that you’re dealing with a trust (not a contract) and then apply principles of trust law. You can’t fight trusts–even if they “sound like a contract” to you–with contract law. It’s like trying to win a football game by arguing baseball rules. It ain’t gonna work.

      • Yartap

        February 15, 2013 at 3:21 PM


        I agree with you about a trust, but our corporate government trust is restricted and limited. When it ventures into areas it is not to be in, I don’t believe it can ask for a pledge, but rather by contract. The corporate trust may only ask for pledges from those outside of the trust agreement, like foreigners. But as far as for me and you, we are already in the trust as a beneficiaries.

        The corporate trust trustees may act with its granted powers for the benefit of all within the trust rules and its duties or constitutional areas. Outside the trustees authority, if it controls a created corporation, it must establish “continuous” contracts for these type services, I believe. A pledge implies, to me, a lack of ownership in the corporation or trust. Could this be, too? Who owns our corporation or trust? Or who owns and controls these areas outside of the trust’s domain?

        We may want to ask if “contract” and “pledge” are the same.

      • Adask

        February 15, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        A contract has two or more signatures; a pledge has only one.

        In a contract both sides must have a rough equality in negotiating power. In a pledge, the two “parties” (only one of which is a signatory) are unequal in negotiating capacity. There is no negotiating. No “meeting of the minds” in a pledge.

      • NDT

        February 16, 2013 at 12:37 AM

        There’s also the quasi contract, which has no explicit agreement.

      • Morningstar

        February 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM

        Some scriptures I believe I understand. Some I know I do not understand.. One scripture says, My people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. Then, another scripture says, Woe to those who deprive my people of their rights.This last scripture is enough for me to believe that rights come from YHWH. BUT, it seems to me these rights are going to be denied by the oppressors regardless of whether God’s people have “knowledge” or not..I think Christ & other apostles etc.,had knowledge. Also, he,Christ said if they have persecuted me, they will persecute you. So, I am at a loss to understand what the scripture that says my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge means. Except I know what destroyed & being destroyed means.

      • Adask

        February 24, 2013 at 2:04 AM

        I’ll reply in a brief post on the blog.

  7. Anthony Clifton

    February 15, 2013 at 8:16 AM

    bunch of raving anti-semantics..

    The nothing-to-hide argument is everywhere. In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by guess how many so-called …ahem…”officials ” with pretend…. “Authority”…. via closed-circuit television.

    In a campaign slogan for the program,the alleged so-called “government” declares:

    “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.” Variations of nothing-to-hide arguments frequently appear in blogs, letters to the editor, television news interviews, and other forums.

    One blogger in the United States, in reference to profiling people for henny penny national-security purposes, declares: “I don’t mind people wanting to find out things about me, I’ve got nothing to hide! Which is why I support [the government’s] efforts to find terrorists by monitoring our phone calls!”

    The argument is not of recent vintage. One of the characters in Henry James’s 1888 novel, The Reverberator, muses: “If these people had done bad things they ought to be ashamed of themselves and he couldn’t pity them, and if they hadn’t done them there was no need of making such a rumpus about other people knowing.”

    I encountered the nothing-to-hide argument so frequently in news interviews, discussions, and the like that I decided to probe the issue….extensively….with a ten foot pole

    obviously America is an Animal Farm…

    where if you have nothing to hide you wouldn’t mind living in an intellectual nudist colony…

  8. Jane Doe

    February 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM

    The whole government appears to me to be based on fraud. It is interesting to me that the Declaration of Independence says, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” and the Constitution, unless I misread it, except for the Bill of Rights, doesn’t say anything about protecting rights.

    • NDT

      February 16, 2013 at 12:41 AM

      In my experience the fraud happens when they the want to “govern” someone who doesn’t consent.

      • Jane Doe

        February 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM

        When the government presents me with something that requires my signature, the government does NOT provide all the information that I contract to when I sign my wet ink signature to it. Specifically, I am led to believe that I am willfully contracting with the legitimate government when I am contracting with a corporation. This is fraud.

        One fraud is that I am cheated of my consideration to my contract because the information given to me by the other party was deceitful. A second fraud is that, again through deception, I am led to believe that the party I am contracting with is a different party than I am actually intending to contract with; I am intending to contract with Texas and yet my contract is with THE STATE OF TEXAS.

      • Adask

        February 16, 2013 at 11:03 AM

        You apparently presume that “when the government presents [you] with something that requires [your] signature,” that must be a contract. You apparently assume that anything requiring your signature must be a “contract”. I disagree.

        I assume that a contract always requires at least TWO signatures to signal that there’s been a “meeting of the minds” (plural) between two or more parties to the contract. I assume that each party to a contract must sign it in order to identify who is (or by implication is not) party to the “contract”. I assume that whenever two or more people sign a document, you probably have a contract. But when there’s only one signature (you sign, but the government does not), I believe you have a pledge rather than a contract.

        Pledges are dangerous because they are one-sided obligations. By pledging, I promise to give something to government, while the government makes no corresponding promise to give anything to me.

        But pledges are also kinda fun because I believe that as the only signatory to pledge, I am the drafter of the pledge (even if the form comes from gov-co) and the text of the pledge means exactly what I, and only I, mean it to say. Thus, if the pledge is “interpreted” or presumed by gov-co to mean that I’ve agreed to conduct my affairs in the venue of “this state,” it should be comparatively easy for me to declare that when I signed the pledge at “OR” or “TX,” I meant a State of the Union. Who can argue against me? Who can testify against me? If I’m the only one who signs a document, I’m the only one who knows what that document meant at the moment I signed.

        It’s not enough for the government ask “Is that your signature?!” as a device to make me liable under a pledge. The fact that I alone signed a document does not necessarily prove that I meant the document to mean whatever government presumes. Therefore, when asked “is that your signature?,” I might say, “Yes–and here’s the meaning that I attached to the words when I signed.”

      • Jane Doe

        February 16, 2013 at 11:38 AM

        Well said, Al. I stand corrected; thank you.

        My point is that the fraud exists when they present the item to me in that the government is deceiving me when it withholds information necessary for me to consciously consider it, whether I am the only signatory or whether a second party is intending to sign it also.

        My ability to consider it is intentionally impaired by them by them withholding facts from my knowledge that I must have in order for me to make an informed decision whether or not to sign it. If I am willfully misinformed, then I am NOT properly notified and my consent is invalid.

        The government intentionally deceives me by willfully refusing to explain the difference between terms like “the United States” and “THE UNITED STATES” before I affix my signature to a document. If I point out to them at the time of my reading the document that the second is invalid because it violates the rules of proper grammar for the English language then they further deceive me by saying that the two are the same. I could go on and on about this, but i think that I have made my point.

        Again, thanks for clarifying the difference between a contract and a pledge. Your keen perception of such matters is why I keep reading your blog.

    • SweaterCups40

      February 16, 2013 at 7:12 AM

      Hi Jane
      @ >The whole government appears to me to be based on fraud

      IT IS !!! BUT, it’s not what are we gonna do about it, it’s WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT ? We are “severely” outnumbered. I “sound” like a pessimist but I am convinced John Adams was & IS right when he said: > “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” My years of hard knocks frum oppressive guhmunt confirm this.

      • Jane Doe

        February 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM

        You, SweaterCups40, can believe whatever you want about the John Adams quote that you cited. The historical record shows that liberty, once lost, has been restored more than once, whether this be in courts of law or on the field of battle. The historical record also proves that being “’severely’ outnumbered” is irrelevant in the first case. “Remember the Alamo” in the second.

        As for what “we” can do about it, “We” can continue to discuss and inform other people, “we” can do the same in whatever councils and meetings “we” can assemble, “we” can pursue it in the corrupt courts of law by presenting it to juries, and if the time ever comes “we” can pursue it on the battlefield.

        As I am an individual, the world’s smallest minority, I understand that I am ALWAYS “severely outnumbered,” that I am ALWAYS alone, that is just a fact of life, and I am NOT cowed by this.

      • Anthony Clifton

        February 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM

        curious, is it not that Israelite people will call a global jewish crime syndicate that has mass murdered over 300 million people, and ledgerdemained hundreds of trillions of “dollars”…

        “government”..Government..or GOVERNMENT…..

        when the word “government” has never been defined for Americans…{using their own documents} as a global “Jewish” crime syndicate that prints currency, owns the media, and operates a crackhouse called Congress.

    • Jerry S

      April 22, 2013 at 11:43 PM

      Jane Doe,
      @ >You, SweaterCups40, can believe whatever you want about the John Adams quote that you cited.

      And,YOU,Jane Doe,can believe whatever YOU want too 2. I believe we have almost 6,000 (six thousand) years of recorded history & NOTHING, NOT ONE THING has worked. I think,however, we just need a little more time to PROVE Man CAN rule over man benevolently & righteously. You believe this 2 don’t you? Sure you do. 6,000 years is just too short to prove a point. The good news is, I don’t think we will need 6,000 more years, maybe 5,000. Yes,5,000 more years is more like it. We have made great strides in 6,000 years, therefore I firmly believe it will not take 6,000 more due to the great accomplishments made in 6,000 years of establishing everything from A 2 Z, guhmunt wise.We’re almost there. Just need a little time. Might even get the job done in LESS than 5,000 more years.

  9. SweaterCups40

    February 16, 2013 at 7:17 AM

    @ >In my experience …..
    We both have experienced the same thing. We have a lot of experience don’t we?

  10. SweaterCups40

    February 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM

    @“Remember the Alamo”
    Remember Waco? I do !! I am not “cowed” either. In my “standing firm position” I have nothing left to lose. IF you do, keep on standing firm. I have NEVER paid a “fine” a.k.a. FINA & I never will. I have been granted 3 hots & a cot,PAY OR STAY. I chose to STAY, EVERYTIME, & still will do so. Go ahead & learn the hard way.WHEN YOU WIN, POST IT. You may hit the lotto,too. NOW I walk softly but I carry the BIG STICK.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s